finds that company CEOs are not the most trustworthy sources for their reporting, even ones who aren’t facing jail time… Reporters say they’re more interested in credible sources, such as:
* Customers’ experiences with a company
* The quality of that company’s products
* The status of the company as an industry innovator
All interesting stuff. I also focused on this comment on the findings by David Kratz, himself a CEO (of Euro RSCG Magnet):
To build visibility and credibility simultaneously, companies must break free from traditional, linear communications models and adopt a more proactive, holistic approach. An integrated communications strategy that unifies messaging across all marketing disciplines is only part of the answer–although certainly a critical part. But companies must go even further if they are to leverage the opportunities created by the emergence of the prosumer. They must partner with and start a dialogue with customers, consumers, academics, media–basically each and every stakeholder–and inspire them to carry the company message.
Hmm, I’m sceptical. Is this just a bit of classic PR flannel? It has nice sounding buzzwords like partnering and dialogue. But spot PR 1.0 in the idea of leveraging, unifying messaging across all marketing disciplines and in inspire them to carry the company message. What’s it to be, David? A real conversation in which we might all be – horror of horrors – surprised by the spontaneous? Or just a pretend one, designed to peddle a pre-fabricated message? (No doubt hatched expensively with consultants at head office).